nikon d60: please help me choose a telephoto lens!!

[I'm a Mac]

I know that prime lenses do take better pictures (I have the nikon 50mm af from my nikon film slrs, but it doesn't autofocus with my d60) but I just don't think it's practical for a vacation with a lot of touring and moving and such a variety of different places. (I could be in jerusalem one day and at the bahai gardens the next), that's why I kind of like the idea of an all in one lens. I'm not going to spend the extra regarding the lens quality- I'll just have to test the lenses out in the store.

but why do a lot of people say that the 18-200 vr takes better quality photos then the 18-55 vr?

Also, I know that the 18-200 isn't that heavy, but when I just need to take wide angle shots I guess I'd rather bring my 18-55- so then maybe I would still use the 18-55.

 

[I'm a Mac]

Sigma's AF-S is called HSM. Both lenses, the 50-150 (about $750 at bhphoto) and the 70-200 (about $800 at bhphoto) will focus with your camera.
The Sigma will make minced meat of the 55-200 VR, it's a much better lens.

And yes, you will miss something in portrait situations. The 70-200 also weighs about twice as much (1380 g vs. 780 g), is larger and also more expensive.

Original Nikkors will be better, but even more expensive.

Does the sigma 50-150 lens have a VR feature? I was experiment with my camera, and wow, you don't really understand vr until it's gone. It's great. I can take any picture without the use of a tripod.

Anyway, I like this lens, and I know it will take far superior pictures than that of the 18-200, and it's relatively compact for a lens of this kind. How will this go along with my 18-55 VR?

I'm definitely not going to get the 70-200 sigma or the nikon 70-200, way to big and heavy for travel purposes. It's between this and the 18-200 (quality vs. convience)

Edit: if you're wondering what I'm going to be taking pictures of, I'm going on a trip to Israel- where I could be taking pictures in Jerusalem one day and taking pictures of the view from Masada the next- that's why an 18-200 makes sense (and VR), although not if the quality stinks.

EDIT #2: I just saw a sigma 18-200 with optical stabilization that's f/3.5-6.3
it got a great review at dp review http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093013sigma18-200dcos.asp and it's supposed to have superior image quality.

It's less expensive than the nikon 18-200, and DP preview says it has better image quality.

 

[OreoCookie]

Does the sigma 50-150 lens have a VR feature? I was experiment with my camera, and wow, you don't really understand vr until it's gone. It's great. I can take any picture without the use of a tripod.

No, but you don't need to, because you have a much larger initial aperture. Compared to the 18-200, VR gives you about 2 to 3 stops. VR doesn't help you with motion blur, it just reduces blur from camera shake. At longer focal lengths, the 50-150 is two stops faster -- which is what you gain from a VR. However, the larger initial aperture gives you an advantage, because you will also have less motion blur.

 

[Nikon Shooter]

Nikon

Get the Nikon 70-300 VR. Period end of story. The Nikon quality, the extra 100mm and the VR will make you happy!!

NS

 

[Qianlong]

I would also go for the better 70-300m VR.

Just check some 70-300 threads on Nikon Cafe or pbase

 

[I'm a Mac]

but now I'm leaning towards the 18-200 because the build quality is better and the connivence justifies the extra 100mm. even ken rockwell says that the 70-300 vr has poor build quality. I was also wondering about the tamaron 18-270- how would that compare to a nikon?